Haji MATEENUDDIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, an accountant at the National Bank of Pakistan, who was charged with embezzlement of prize bonds worth Rs. 1,90,00,000. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his inclusion as an accused only in the final challan, the lack of new evidence collected between the interim and final challans, and the fact that a co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the applicant was initially listed as a prosecution witness and that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any new evidence justifying his subsequent transposition to the list of accused persons. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's continued service until retirement and his voluntary surrender. The Court held that the applicant's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant criminal procedure provisions. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the principle that where the prosecution fails to show incriminating evidence justifying a change in the accused's status, the case warrants further inquiry.
- Does the transposition of a person from a prosecution witness to an accused in a final challan without new evidence justify the grant of bail?
- When does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail to a co-accused on identical charges a relevant factor for considering the bail application of another accused?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant seeks bail in a case registered under section 409/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (H of 1947), (F.I.R. No,46 of 1999 Police Station F.I.A./ C.B.C./Karachi) pending trial before the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh, at Karachi.
2. 'The prosecution case briefly stated is that the applicant Haji Mateenuddin, an accountant with co- accused Salamullah a Chief Cashier, were joint operating officials of the strong room of the National Bank, Risala Road Branch, Hyderabad. On 5-11-1999 the complainant Qaiser Khan Laghari, Manager of National Bank of Pakistan, Risala Road Branch, Hyderabad made a complaint in writing to the Deputy Director, F.I.A., C.B.C. Reporting that the Prize Bonds worth Rs,1,90,00,000 were missing from the strong room of the branch. The abovenamed two officials were the custodians of the strong room and responsible for such embezzlement alongwith two other employees namely Muhammad Yousuf and Mehboob Alam (both messengers). However, upon such disclosure of missing of the Prize Bonds, the Bonds were cancelled and thus the bank was saved from the loss.
3. Such misplacement of the Prize Bonds was brought to the complainant's notice by the accused Haji Mateenuddin. Such complaint was incorporated in the F.I.R. Registered on 4-12-1999, as aforesaid.
4. 'Through interim challan submitted in Court on 21-12-1999, only Chief Cashier Slamullah was challaned as an accused in the case, while the applicant was shown as one of the P.W. In the list of prosecution witnesses.
5. ' It is argued by Mr. M. Ilyas Khan learned counsel for the applicant that the final challan was submitted after 15 months on 21-3-2001 wherein for the first time it appeared that the applicant was made an accused. He has argued that the case of the applicant is identical, if not on better footing, to the case of co-accused Salamullah (presently on bail). No evidence has been collected during the period between submission of interim challan and the final challan. Main accused Salamullah was granted bail on 12-4-2000 by the learned trial Court and that order has not been challenged. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant never absconded. He was all along performing his duties since registration of the case in 1999 till 5-5-2001, which is the date of his retirement. It is further submitted that during this period there was marriage of applicant's daughter where a large number of his colleagues and notables attended the marriage function. It was contended that a departmental enquiry was conducted wherein the applicant was fully exonerated and such certificate was issued by the Bank to the effect that the applicant was not involved in any departmental enquiry or investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that upon knowing that he was challaned, the applicant on 10-10-2001 surrendered before the trial Court and submitted an application for bail but his application was turned down and he was remanded to custody. It was lastly argued that the loss of Prize Bonds was immediately circulated to all the banks and thus no loss has been caused to the bank. Reliance was placed upon 1996 SCM R 1132.
6. ' Mr. Khursheed A. Hashmi, learned Dy.A.-G. Appearing for the State and Investigating Officer/Inspector Israr Ahmed of the case, have not been able to show that some evidence, implicating the applicant, was collected during the period between filing of the interim challan and the final challan. Nothing has been produced or relied upon for transposing the present applicant from the list of the P.Ws. To the list of the accused.
7. ' In our humble view, the applicant's case would call for further enquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. We would accordingly allow bail to the applicant subject to his B furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,90,00,000 (Rupees one crore and ninety lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.